Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU # 6405 Case file # 87-158178.

Material Examiner:

Malone fROI

Remarks:

Case resulted in trial. Transcript not provided.

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 8:15 AM (Time), 03/15/2001 (Date)

File#: 87-158178

Laboratory #{s): 30328077

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

RQ

XO

o

a

TK, VY, VM

□

Xo

□

RU, UI, MW

□

Xa

□

Not Reviewed
□

□

□

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcripts) of:

Testimony Date(s):

Laboratory Report(s):

Laboratory Number: 30328077

Laboratory Number:

Laboratory Number:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ

Laboratory Number: 30328077

Pages:

Date: June 30, 1983

Date:

Date:

Page

Initials:

C “) IO ft

Was any other material reviewed? Xd Yes Q No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: Submitting agency letter (dated 5-25-83)

Results of Review

File#: 87-158178 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q5, Q7-Q8, Q16, QI8, Q21,

123, Q24, Q26-Q29, Q32-37, Q42-Q51, K3-K9, K1 1-K14

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?

□ Yes □ No X □ Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reports) supported and adequately documented in

the bench notes? □ Yes X □ No □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Xa

Transcript not available.

3)

Testimony consistent with the laboratory reports)?

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

4)

Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

5)

Testimony within bounds of examiner’s expertise?

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 3

fylt'Ls

Initials:

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
Use “Additional Comments" Sheet, if needed)

File #:

87-158178

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, even with the best notes, there is no way to determine the comparison

was performed correctly.

#2: The examination results set forth in the laboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the

documentation is marginally adequate. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. There are several

erasures. Malone uses abbreviations to indicate the microscopic characteristics of the hair. These abbreviations

are difficult to interpret.

Review completed at:

9:30 AM (Time), 03/15/2001

(Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour):

1:15 hour

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 3 pages.

(Signature)

03/15/2001

(Date)

Page

Initials: